In a similar vein, Dan was asking a few days ago why people claim the 300 level is the best place to watch hockey when the 200 level gives you the elevation you need to see the full ice without the distance. I needn't say any more. It's like when you convince yourself that you'd rather have a hamburger than steak, except that at United Center price points, it's more like you'd rather have a steak than a free-range beer-massaged gold-plated steak.

_________________

This has come up in various conversations, and I would say there is no litmus test for fans. Everyone is welcome to be whatever kind of fan they want to be. Some people can afford to go to more games than others.

But it also comes down to choices. I like going to a lot of ballgames. There are other things I don't do since I choose to spend my money there. A lot of people, especially a lot of the guys on the radio, can't seem to understand that the viewpoints of people who actually pay for tickets might be different than the viewpoints of those who don't. I certainly think my opinion as someone who spends thousands of dollars in the ballpark each summer should carry more weight in the eyes of ownership than the opinion of someone who doesn't. And if that isn't the case, something's wrong.

When I pay for those season tickets in January, I'm committed. If they're Cub tickets I might- MIGHT- be able to dump some depending on how the season plays out. But if they're Sox tickets, I'm either going to the fucking games or I'm eating the tickets. It's great for the guy who hasn't made such a commitment to say, "play all the young guys and if they're no good, find someone else" when all he has to do is shut off his television when shit gets ugly. I'm stuck watching that slop. That's why the teams are so reluctant to use the word "rebuilding". And yeah, it's my choice to make that commitment, but it shouldn't be hard to understand why I might find it galling to hear those who haven't made that commitment telling me how I should feel. It's not much different from bernstein buying a house and me insisting on the way it should be decorated.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

No offense to White Sox fans but why the hell would anyone buy season White Sox tickets?
You can pretty much walk up any day and buy a nice seat.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I know. That's why they lost me. I almost felt sorry for the kid trying to convince me why it's to my benefit to buy the package. The way they price stuff now, I can see a day when no two people in the ballpark paid the same price for a ticket.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

They lowered season ticket price at 35th place, so if you buy seasons you can get up to a 23% discount

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

from a business perspective you would do that if you were ricketts?..i know 17% is a real nice return but not as nice as 30% or whatever his cut is now.. i agree owning a team inflates an ego but i don't think owning the cubs is real taxing from an owners perspective..it is a golden goose and now epstein is running things pretty much.

_________________

I'm speaking hypothetically here. Obviously, Ricketts can't get the 17% without operating the ballclub. But it isn't a 17% margin, it's a free 17% for doing nothing. And not 17% of profits either. It's 17% of revenue off the top. At least I think that's how it's supposed to work. There's always one or two guys trying not to pay and I'm sure others have attempted to cook the numbers.

We have no real idea how profitable the Cubs are. The main value of an MLB franchise isn't in how much profit it generates but in the appreciation of the franchise's market value. That's where Ricketts made his bet. The Cubs may be one of a few teams that turn a significant profit, but regardless, it isn't better than another guy handing you 17% of his revenue for nothing.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I still can't believe the Tribune hadn't the foresight or the wherewithal to buy up as much Waveland/Sheffield real estate as they could. They could've had 100% of the rooftop revenues, office space, would've paid for itself several times over. Then again, people could've been unwilling to sell. I think it's my grandmother's aunt? maybe? that owns the Torco sign house, and while her sons and relatives had wanted nothing more than to cash out, she's been adamant that it stay in the family. (This may have to be past-tensed, I don't know if she's dead yet. Admittedly, we're not close. I've never even been invited over!)

I have no problem with the Cubs getting their cut of the rooftop revenue and feel it should be at least 33%. Those are their de facto luxury boxes, and the independent businessmen involved would not be in business if there were not ballgames just happening to be played when their rooftops were rented out.

_________________

Seventeen percent of revenue is a huge number considering the Cubs don't have to deal with any costs or any liability issues, which I'm sure are giant when you put a bunch of drunks on a rooftop.

It's more of a two-way street than people make it out to be. The Cubs use those roofs in marketing. Every time there's a national TV game at Wrigley, the roofs get mentioned and they pull away to show the all the people watching from up there. I don't know what the value of that is, but it does have some value.

Connie Mack once tried to sue to stop people from watching from rooftops. Of course, he lost. So he built a spite wall. That wall didn't make one cent for him and made him look like a douchebag. It's not really as if people are choosing to sit on a roof rather than going into the park.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Oh, I agree. And the fact that the Cubs don't incur the insurance costs of having drunks on a roof is big. I just wish there could be some healthy and equitable business relationship between the Cubs and their neighbors, because it really is symbiotic. The Cubs trying to choke out their rooftops, without whom the Wrigley backdrop is nothing, is just as tone-deaf and selfish as charging tickets to watch a show someone else is putting on and keeping it all for yourself. It's like stealing cable writ large.

I like that the Cubs' neighbors are independent vendors and not baldly 100-percent controlled. It feels real. Of course, the Cubs could own/operate adjacent rooftops, gift shops, restaurants, and such under some shell, continue business as usual, and we'd all be none the wiser, but having all these autonomous connected enterprises still feels better, more city-like, than having those fake-ass "Fan Jams" or whatever Ricketts was trying to set up last summer.

_________________

the estimated revenue for the cubs is around 250 million last year and probably a lil more this year....the cubs should buy up the property they need using eminent domain and build a new park. the white sox did exactly that..the property owners fought it in court and lost




Top Five Revenue Teams
1. New York Yankees, $441 million
2. New York Mets, $268 million
3. Boston Red Sox, $266 million
4. Los Angeles Dodgers, $247 million
5. Chicago Cubs $246 million
Bottom Five Revenue Teams
30. Florida Marlins, $144 million
29. Pittsburgh Pirates, $145 million
28. Oakland Athletics, $155 million
27. Kansas City Royals, $155 million
26. Tampa Bay Rays, $156 million


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... z1jvmQBlea

_________________

My basic worldview is that shit doesn't just go your way 100%. And that goes for everybody. But it seems like some people think it should. A good example would be an employer who gets massively increased production from his employees due to modern technology, but resents that a little bit of time is lost while they play on Facebook or CSFMB. The employer still got the best of the bargain but he isn't satisfied. As it applies to the Cubs, they love to sell the "Wrigley experience" which is inextricably linked to the neighborhood and the rooftops, but then they want to act as if the neighborhood is fucking them.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

So we should try and preserve all the unique aspects of the park to make sure the Cubs remain a special team at the expense of making moves that will help the club win?

You're actually pulling a Goff/Berns bleachers thing here.

Youre a Sox fan. You have zero interest in the Cubs winning.

Its easy for you to dismiss attempts to draw revenue to aid in build a winning team because to you the Cubs are Wrigley and you like going to games there.


If Wrigley maintains its charm and the Cubs never make the playoffs, you'll be just fine.


I dont think its a stretch to say no other fan of any team on the planet can truly understand what it means to root for a team that is in its 11th Decade of not winning a title.

Why is the Cubs being "special" or a natl team important? Who cares? Ill gladly take a Marlins type existance over a team that sucks for 100 years but gets a lot of ESPN sunday night games. I mean if you are looking at it from a make money owing the team standpoint, you make sense but why would a cub fan care or even consider that point of view?

Being on equal footing with the Sox might be a good thing. Having to WIN to make money is probably a good thing from a fan's stand point.

There is only 1 goal as a cub fan. See them win a World Series before you die. None of the other stuff matters....to me at least. I dont hate the park or curse the IVY but if they built a cookie cutter and won a WS id be more than pleased and would be able to deal with the fact that less douchebags from Iowa will be going to games.

Private businesses can't implement eminent domain.

Oh wait, New London. lol oops!

_________________

they can if they use the state as muscle and a front like the white sox did....maybe since wrigley was landmarked they can grab that land.

_________________

Always knew JORR was really a Cubs fan.

Sure he may say he's a Sox fan, but that's just lies.

_________________

I think the flaw in this thinking is the belief that changing the park to be like many others is actually going to help them win. One thing I'm pretty sure it won't do is generate more money long term. The fact that they have a special park is the reason they are one of the top revenue producing teams. The Sox have an entire level of skyboxes they don't use. Just because you build something doesn't mean you can sell it. But I guess no one knows for sure. bernstein is convinced a Cub Town out in a cornfield in Huntley would be the biggest money-maker since the pop-up toaster. I just don't believe that.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Actually, I seem to be one of the few people here who understands concepts like margins, P&L, revenues, expenses, etc.

I don't think Facebook is folding but we still don't know how profitable a year they had, do we? You did notice that Groupon just overstated its revenue by just a few dollars, didn't you? Of course, that was an honest "mistake".

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

But can we really assume that? I mean, the Sox obviously have a relatively modern facility. If the Cubs played at U.S. Cellular, do you think they would make more than they do in Wrigley? I just don't see it. I think the Cubs- for better or for worse (and in a lot of ways it's better and in a few ways it's worse)- are Wrigley Field. My belief is you separate them at your peril. I certainly don't think separating them is the magic ticket to a championship. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they can build Ameritrade Field at Arlington Park and sell out 50,000 seats a game and 200 luxury skyboxes and put huge ads for Rivers Casino and Boeing on each side of the Diamondvision and the Cubs can have a $250 million baseball payroll and win the World Series every four years. I just don't see that though. I think they'd be an average team most of the time the way most teams are and they'd play in front of about 25,000 people at Euclid and Wilke on most nights.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Revenue was reported to be $1.6B in Q1-Q2 and $4.27B on the year.

BTW, Reuters predicted they made $500MM in profit in Q1/Q2, and predicted they would exceed $1B in profit for 2011. If you have more reliable information than Reuters, I'd be interested in seeing it. Or we can wait until they go public in May.

Not reported, "expected". Anyway, I'm not- and have never suggested they weren't profitable. We just have no idea what the real numbers are since they don't report. It's probably a safe assumption that the numbers have been jockeyed in anticipation of an IPO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/pd ... venues-ipo

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I have a hard time believing that has been your stance this whole time, or I wouldn't have found your opinion to be so preposterous. Of course they don't know the EXACT numbers, they are private (I think everyone here understands that concept).

And I wouldn't argue the numbers aren't jockeyed either, that's pretty standard op. Simple concept.

the cubs are bigger than wrigley field and the team will be around long after they demolish that dump..the cubs will outdraw the sox because there are more cubs fans than sox fans..maybe because they played on wgn before there was cable tv and have a huge audience..maybe because of all the day games that kids could see on channel 9 after school? maybe because they play nl rules and have no d.h....i would never go to a game if they rebuild in a cornfield like you said..but if they stay in the city they will always draw.having that dilapidated dump is hurting the teams chances at a world series..cramped clubhouses and day games combined with no real batting cages/bullpens only hurts.

_________________

There's nothing preposterous about my stance and never has been. You can look at all the posts. I don't believe they've been pruned. I guess two weeks ago you believed Groupon had twice the revenues it currently claims. The Facebook numbers are all over the place. And sure, you may be able to get a decent estimate on revenues, but we have no clue about money going the other way. They're going to have to present legitimate financials soon enough. I won't be surprised if they're significantly different than a lot of the leaked bullshit out there on the web.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

The Cubs have no television advantage now and they haven't for awhile. It's not just ordained by the baseball gods that the Cubs have more fans than the Sox. The neighborhoods around U.S. Cellular are quickly gentrifying, the family of four is being priced out of Wrigley. These are things that will likely effect how many fans of each team there are in the future.

And I really hope you're not suggesting that the majority of fans prefer to watch .160 hitters bat. That clearly is not the case. The National League clings to an anachronistic style that isn't played in any other league in the entire world and will likely soon be gone, as the very concept of the separate leagues will almost certainly be destroyed long before Wrigley Field is.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

well i am hoping the a.l. comes around to the n.l. rules...but you are probably right..with all the butchers making huge guaranteed tens of millions doubt that the d.h. is abolished like it should be..selig usually makes the wrong move..i understand that now the cubs have no advantage in broadcasting...but they did for a very long time and that did not change until they let the sox come on wgn..the damage was done 2 generations of fans were drawn in....say what you will about the pitchers hitting 160 (dunn just did that) but that is the way the game was meant to be played, that is how you and me and everyone else played..the fan that wants some juiced up scrub that swings for the fences every at bat and can't play any positions is in the minority.

_________________

I wish the Sox weren't on WGN and the Cubs weren't on CSN just for the sake of knowing where the fuck a game is being played without having to look it up. WGN? CSN? CSN+? CSN+2? CLTV? 26? Fox? ESPN? TBS? Too damn much. At least my radio-listening life is easy; no Cubs calls moved to Rewind 100.3 because there's an edition of Garry Meier Plays Song Snippets that just can't be missed.

_________________

Great post Jorr.

Bernsie is 100% wrong.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

The game was "meant to be played" with the provision that the fielders could "soak" a runner and the game was "meant to be played" with a ball that could barely be hit out of the infield too, right? Whatever you think about the DH- and I know some people hate it- the vast majority of fans don't want to watch the pitcher hit. I know all the arguments on both sides. And I enjoy the game played both ways. But the public likes to see hitters hit.* The public likes interleague play. It really doesn't matter what a handful of "purists" think.




*Your arbitrary shot at Sox DH Adam "the Oaf" Dunn has been duly noted.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don